Susskind: no future for high street firms, but window of opportunity for mid-sized practices

Susskind: it still makes sense, in the first instance, to qualify as a conventional lawyer

There is not much of a future for small, high street law firms in the face of competition from banks and retailers, while medium-sized practice will need to merge and seek external investment to survive and thrive, leading legal ‘futurologist’ Professor Richard Susskind has predicted.

In his new book – Tomorrow’s lawyers: An introduction to your future – Professor Susskind said his analysis of the legal market is that “law firms in the coming decade and beyond will be driven relentlessly by their clients to reduce their costs”.

The book, aimed at law students, outlines and updates the academic’s well-known predictions of how the market will develop, driven by what he terms the ‘more for less’ challenge, as well as liberalisation and technology.

He said that unless small firms offer a genuinely specialist or personal service that some market is prepared to pay for, they do not have much of a future beyond 2020.

High street practices will face competition from banks and retailers; “it is likely that these alternative business structures, fuelled by external investment and driven by experienced business managers, will standardise, systematise, and package legal services and bring cost savings, efficiencies, and experience that the traditional, small firms will find impossible to match. This will be the end of lawyers who practise in the manner of a cottage industry”.

The future is rosier for medium-sized firms. “To survive and thrive I suspect most will need to merge and seek external investment to enable the changes from their current approach to a new, sustainable, longer-term business model.

“There is a window of opportunity here – they should recognise that clients’ dissatisfaction with some of the leading firms throws up an unprecedented opportunity to be recognised as credible alternatives. To do this, they must find ways of building their reputations, brands, and capabilities.”

Professor Susskind accepted that there is some force in the argument from the largest ‘elite’ global firms – which he numbered at about 20 – that for bet-the-ranch deals and disputes, clients will still want the services delivered, more or less, as in the past.

“However, they should not be overconfident… If one leading firm breaks rank, or if a major new force (such as a ‘Big 4’ accounting firm) emerges, and brings a new proposition to the market – a credible brand at half the price of its competitors, for example – then this could fundamentally and irreversibly change the market; and not just for the elite firms but across the entire profession.

“Leaders of the elite firms should suspend their likely incredulity at this scenario, if only because major clients, as never before, are commonly saying that they are now actively looking for alternatives to the traditional ways of some of the great firms whom many regard as too costly and sometimes too arrogant.”

Professor Susskind forecast that within a decade or so, “after intense agonising and various changes of direction, most major jurisdictions in the West and many emerging jurisdictions will have liberalised in the manner of England”.

The book lays out his vision of new legal jobs – such as legal knowledge engineer and legal project manager – and that in addition to conventional legal practices, a host of non-traditional employers will be waiting to employ future lawyers, including new-look law firms, high street retailers and online legal services providers

However, he advised that “it still makes sense, in the first instance, to qualify as a conventional lawyer. This may not be necessarily but I think it desirable, not simply because it will for many years yet be useful to enjoy the status of being, say, a qualified solicitor or barrister, but because exposure to and understanding of traditional legal service should provide a valuable foundation upon which to build any new career in law”.

Professor Susskind was critical of traditional law firms for not wanting to change, but told aspiring lawyers that “as never before there is an opportunity to be involved in shaping the next generation of legal services”.

Cash and client capture will be key to a future success in legal services. This is where many traditional law firms may struggle and where new entrants have an advantage. In the face of the Pi Tsunami, I see volume based pi firms now turning to niche areas of work such as clin neg. They have the cash and many have their own ability to capture clients in a way that many niche and high street practices can’t. The key is to flex, adapt and change – quickly.

I know that Mr. Susskind has a proven track record with his futuristic predictions so I am loathe to criticize. Nevertheless, some of what he predicts has already happened, particularly competition from banks and non-lawyer providers was actually routine in practice here in the US back in the 1950s. I commend anyone predicting the future of solos to read about our past in Jerome Carlin’s book here. Some of today’s business models are just recycled remnants from the past rather than the disruptive forces they’re portrayed to be. I reviewed Carlin’s book here if anyone is interested – http://myshingle.com/2012/12/articles/myshingle-solo/the-future-of-law-been-there-done-that-lets-do-it-better/ BTW, I am not a luddite. I use technology extensively and routinely go up against AmLaw 100 firms which I could never do on my clients’ budgets without outsourcing, cloud, templates and technology.

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

Back in the day, when I entered the legal profession, an age of the Telex and elephantine batteries operating mobile phones, most articled clerks, as they then were, eyed achieving equity status. That was expected.